xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_url

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature ('最多短等 210 秒'), the return of a job_id upon timeout, and a subsequent query action. This goes beyond the name to explain the tool's non-immediate behavior, though it doesn't cover error conditions or auth requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with two clauses, no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and efficiently adds the timeout behavior. Every part earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and a straightforward async pattern, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, input needed, and the asynchronous result handling. It does not cover error scenarios, but the output schema likely handles that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'note_url'. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: '提交小红书视频笔记口播转文字任务' (submit a Xiaohongshu video note speech-to-text task). It also specifies the input via the tool name (note_url) and the asynchronous behavior (wait up to 210 seconds, return job_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xhs_get_video_speech_text_job or xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a usage flow (submit, wait, then query if incomplete) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as xhs_submit_video_speech_text_by_note_id. It hints at the next step ('返回 job_id 和下一步查询动作') but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.